jeudi 22 octobre 2009

From my handwritten copy collationed with numeric photograph of page columns 968/969 in Second Edition 1588 of De Controversiis.

Trying to identify source of pseudoquote

"If the Pope some day imposed sins and forbade virtues, the Church is obliged to believe that these sins are good and these virtues are bad"

I debate with someone who goes to antiquated Protestant scholarship mistaking it for Catholic, and get close to a source in that antiquated Protestant scholarship, though it misquotes its source.

I identified the quote first as book one, chapter 4, c.=something else 5. That gave no clue whatsoever. Then I said, well, it is maybe volume or tome one, book four and chapter (=c.) five. Here we go. It does talk about Popes legislating on morals, and it does talk about legislating wrongly, and it does insist on obedience. But it does not say that if a Pope legislates wrongly in an important matter, we are still bound to obey the Pope. It says only that God who demanded of us to obey the Pope cannot permit him to legislate wrongly in such an important matter.

The third proposition can be this one. Not only in decrees of the faith the Supreme Pontiff [=Highest Bishop]* cannot err, but neither in precepts of moral matters, which are prescribed to all of the Church; & which have their scope in things necessary for salvation, or in them that are good, or bad, by themselves.

FIRSTLY we say, that the Pontiff cannot err in precepts, which are prescribed for all the Church; since, as we said above, it is not absurd that a Pontiff err in precepts or judgements on particular matters. SECONDLY we add, which have their scope in things necessary for salvation, or in what is good, or bad by itself; since it is not erroneous to say that the Pontiff can err in other legislations, that is by making a superfluous law, or a not so well thought through, & c.

And in order to clarify all the matter with examples; It cannot happen that the Pontiff err precepting some vice, like usury; or forbidding some virtue, like restitution: since these are good, or bad by themselves. nor can it happen that he err precepting something against salvation, as Circumcision or Sabbath; or forbidding something necessary for salvation, as Baptism or Eucharist; even though these be not good or bad by themselves: but that he order something which is not good, nor bad out of itself, nor against salvation, but is only useless, or that he give that precept under too grave a sanction, is not abusrd to say it can happen; still, it is not for the ones under him to doubt about this thing, but simply to obey.

Now the proposition is proven; & FIRSTLY, that a Pope cannot err in precepts of usages necessary to salvation: since then all Church would suffer grieveous damage, and err in necessary things, which is against the promise of the Lord. John 16. But when that Spirit of Truth shall come, he will teach you all the truth. Which is understood (at the very least) about Truth necessary for salvation. SECONDLY, since God then would let down his Church in necessities; since he gave her the precept to follow the Pontiff, & let the Pontiff err in necessities. But surely, if God lets not one thing down in necessities, how much less his Church?

But that the Pontiff cannot err in moral matters that are goo, or bad, by themselves, is proven. FOR then the Church could not be truly called holy, as she is called in the Apostles' Creed. For holy she is most of all called because of her holy profession, as we have shown elsewhere; since indeed she professes a holy law and profession, which teaches nothing false, and gives no evil precept. THEN AGAIN, since then she would by necessity err also about the faith. For the Catholic faith teaches that all virtue is good, all vice is evil: but if the Pope erred giving precepts for vices or forbidding virtues, the Church would be obliged to believe vices good & virtues bad, unless she wanted to sin against her conscience.

I wonder what St Robert Bellarmine would have said about Benedict XV who in 1917 ceased to forbid the taking of interest as usury. Or about the canonist who counselled him so - Eugene Pacelli was the one responsible for preparing the then new code of canon law - becoming later Pope under name of Pius XII. To St Robert Bellarmine - as indeed to me too - taking interest on a loan of goods in themselves not productive, as is necessarily the case with the goods of exchange, "productive money" being as useless for exchange of values as yardsticks still growing as branches are for measuring, is in of and by itself wrong or evil. Yet, Pacelli counselled Benedict XV otherwise, and when Pope ordered one monastery to pay interest to another cleric (AAS for one of years 1943, 1947 or 1950). He has been much accused for being Hitler's Pope - wrongly - but that is no cause to canonise him. HE and HIS modernisms are what made me doubt first that he was truly Pope, then that Papacy was the true succession of St Peter. What is amply clear is that St Robert Bellarmine did not know that and that a man who claims to have read him and cites this chapter as "if a Pope decrees vices or forbids virtues, the Church is obliged to obey him" is not very scholarly or even honest.

*Supreme Pontiff, I have also seen Sovereign Pontiff=usual title, Highest Bishop=what St Robert Bellarmine is talking about, the Bishop of rome being higher than others. Both are in Latin "Summus Pontifex".

Bellarmine clearly says that imposing a sin and forbidding a virtue is error, he is not at all declaring that the Church can be bound by such error, he thought God would never allow a Pope to commit such an error.

The examples of the England language found on this site are full of grammatical mistakes and unidiomatic phrases. "Highest Pontiff" simply does not exist in English to denote the Bishop of Rome: Supreme Pontiff is the appropriate expression. I would humbly beg the author of this blog to consult Fowler's English Usage and King's English, and to read the diverse works of Dr Johnson to get an idea of what correct English not only "looks" like but also "sounds". I wish you had less latinity and more clearness in your expressions. Thanking you.

"Highest Pontiff" corrected to "Supreme Pontiff" (supreme happens to be Latin for highest). The translation ON THIS MESSAGE closely follows the Latin, and does not sound like English but like Latin too closely translated into English. It is mine, made for sole purpose of defending St Robert Bellarmine against a calumny related to this locus of his work De Romano Pontifice. It does not nor should not either claim any literary quality of mine, only a mere serveice to any reader unable to read St Robert's Latin for himself.

I personally have no problem with the latin language. Though i'm confined to a classical and not to a scholastic and mediaeval vocabulary. The only work of Bellarmine which i know and as a consequence of which i like, is the De Arte Bene Moriendi- which in my humble opinion many people should read. There are also the works of Jeremy Taylor, an Anglican divine on the same subject: Holy Living and Holy Dying which influenced much the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

I note that some Divines in Protestant Communities such as Anglicans and Lutherans have:

1 approached Catholicism in Liturgy and view of Sacraments (Oxford Movement of 1830's, more recently in Sweden);

2 even before that tried to salvage Catholic piety, like the books you refer to and which I have not read, like Giertz and Schartau in Sweden, not to mention their successor the recently deceased Bertil Gärtner (R.I.P.).

Unfortunately they do not constitute the mainstream of Protestantism or even of their own particular communities.

Yes, indeed, there was at a time a wave of "High-Churchianism" in the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches- but with the admission of women to their "orders" and like aberrations, it has been mostly likely sidelined, persecuted or even destroyed.

What do you think of Bossuet and his Gallicanism? Extraordinary and in my opinion, praiseworthy that a Bishop should at the same time live at the court, advise the King, without ceasing to administer his diocese, instructing the faithful under him and strengthening them in the Catholic faith and confuting the Protestants.

Perhaps our Protestant apologist is a bit disappointed that I have not yet engaged him in any quibbling about Greek. Well, he's offered me a beauty of an instance; in fact, it's his very favorite quotation from Athanasius, the one in which he pretends that Athanasius professes the doctrine of sola scriptura over and against Church councils. Speaking of the Arians, St. Athanasius says:

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a council is needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in the divine Scriptures" (On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, 6).

Does St. Athanasius' original Greek really say that Scripture is "sufficient above all things"? No. In a very simple sentence which a first-year Greek student should be able to translate correctly, St. Athanasius declares "For divine Scripture is more sufficient than all [other writings, councils, etc.]." The sentence in transliterated Greek reads Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe. Here we do not have an absolute statement, but a comparative one. To say that Scripture is the primary source of doctrine is not to say that it is the sole source of doctrine. I do not know of any Catholic theologian, doctor, or council of prelates of any period in the Church's history who would not view arguments from Sacred Scripture as the more authoritative among various sources of doctrine. This quotation gives absolutely no support to the Protestant error of sola scriptura. The issue here in the Greek is subtle, yes, but seemingly too subtle for the Protestant apologist to have caught.

Same article also states (if truthfully I leave to scholars who have studied the Council of 680):

There is some question as to whether the emperor acted on his own, or in concert with Pope Sylvester. While the accounts contemporary to the event mention only Constantine, a statement made in the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680) indicates Nicea was called by both the emperor and the Pope. It is interesting to note this statement was made during the general session, and was received as true without question or objection. Surely they would have known better, were it not true.

Fr. Paul Natterer of Zaitzkofen (SSPX Seminary in Germany) stated in the sermon series Wie müssen wir zum Pabst stehen, he considered the position of Cajetan more balanced than that of St Robert Bellarmine.

It cannot happen that the Pontiff err precepting some vice, like usury; or forbidding some virtue, like restitution: since these are good, or bad by themselves.

Noting examples: look up Canon law of 1917, juridic work directed by Pacelli, look up its interpretation in 1943 (AAS=Acta Apostolicae Sedis), by same Pacelli become Pope Pius XII - if Pope he was. He ordered a monastery to pay interest to another monastery that year.

To F.G.S.A. forwarded from the newsletter Eleison Comments by Bishop Williamson:

ELEISON COMMENTS CCXIII (Aug.13, 2011) : INNOCENT IGNORANCE ?

A reader asks a vital question : « If a good Protestant has lived a good life but still firmly believes that the Catholic Faith is wrong, so that he does not even consider entering the Catholic Church, can he still be saved ?" The question is vital (from "vita" in latin, meaning "life"), because it is a question of eternal life or death for countless souls.

By way of answer, the first thing to be said is that every soul appearing at death instantaneously before God's judgment seat will be judged by him with a perfect justice and with a perfect mercy. God alone knows the depths of a man's heart which a man can hide from himself, let alone from other men. Men may misjudge, but God never. Therefore the "good Protestant" will be damned by himself or saved by God, exactly as God knows that he has deserved.

Nevertheless it stands to reason that if God wants all of us to be saved (I Tim.II,4), and requires of us to believe on pain of damnation (Mk.XVI,16), he will have let us men know what we must believe and what we must do to save our souls. What then must the "good Protestant" believe ?

At the very least any soul to be saved must believe that God exists and that he rewards the good and punishes the wicked (Heb.XI,6). If a "good Protestant" who has led "a good life" does not believe that, he cannot be saved. But many Catholic theologians go further and say that to be saved one must also believe in the Holy Trinity and in Christ as Redeemer. If these theologians are right, then there may be many more "good Protestants" who cannot save their souls.

And God may require of them to believe in more than just these absolute basics, depending upon how much opportunity they have had in life to learn of the Truth that comes from him. If they are ignorant of all the rest of the Catholic Faith, have they never come across it ? Possibly not. But possibly they have. I can remember my mother telling with admiration how a Catholic priest once answered all the serious questions of her "good Protestant" father, but there was no follow-up that I know of. If then "good Protestants" have even only once come across Catholic truth, why exactly did they not follow up ? Unless it was badly presented, they were in effect rejecting truth. Can they have rejected it without some fault? Then did they reject it innocently or wilfully ? "Good Protestants" easily consider themselves to be innocent, as do we all, but God is deceived by none of us.

However, there is also what a "good Protestant" must do to be saved. He may not know all that the Catholic Church infallibly requires of us in morals, but he does have at least the natural light of his in-born conscience. Now it may be truly difficult with original sin and with no help from the Catholic sacraments to follow that natural light of one's conscience, but if one does seriously violate it or twist it out of true, it is easy to live and to die in mortal sin, a state in which no soul can be saved. Again, the "good Protestant" may plead ignorance of the fullness of God's law as Catholics can know it, but is his ignorance truly "invincible", i.e. innocent ? For instance, did he really not know, or did he actually want not to know, that artificial means of birth control are seriously displeasing to God ?

God knows. God judges. May he have mercy upon all "good Protestants", and upon all of us.

If you profit from these conditions to edit part or total of my writings, you may, from a certain number of copies and counting upward, be obliged to a legal deposit to the British Library. More information, click here.